Let me state clearly that I am only referring to reviews, not owning the lenses, but the newer 16-35 f4 seems to be better than the older 17-35 f2.8, albeit weak on the longer end. The 35/2 Nikon - check photozone etc.

Personally I would go with the 16-35 which seems to be very good stopped down, relatively modest in price, size and weight, and takes filters. Beware though of the distortion at 16mm! Needs correction.

I would not want to be without 35 or 40mm prime though, or at least the 50 1.8

Surf

Vlad3
wrote:

Thank you, guys, I really appreciate your input!

I also feel that the difference between 50 and 70 is small but the visual contrast between 24 and 35 is quite respectable. It is why I'm "sniffing" around the 35mm size.

Is Nikon AF 35mm f/2.0D lens very bad when fully open (on full-frame)? It's small and cheap but it usually doesn't translate in to quality...

I know that 50mm/1.8G is the cheapest but still passable alternative to be used if nothing else works out.

Or, I could go with 17-35 (instead of 14-24) to eliminate this conundrum - but is it worth it? Still need to learn more from you!